3 ms·

Here's a specific complaint about the application of a new and unnecessary airplane strike rule to an already approved design: https://atomicinsights.com/nrcs-i

by evilos 3y ago

Here's a specific complaint about the application of a new and unnecessary airplane strike rule to an already approved design: https://atomicinsights.com/nrcs-imposition-of-aircraft-impact-rule-played-a-major-role-in-vogtle-project-delays-and-vc-summer-failure/ https://atomicinsights.com/nrcs-imposition-of-aircraft-impac... Personally, I think what will happen is that other countries like China and South Korea will build lots and lots of NPPs cheaply and quickly and the US will only consider making changes to the way things are done after looking incredibly inept in comparison. The NRC is only one of many things that needs to change.

philipkglass 3y ago
This doesn't explain why the Vogtle AP1000s had cost/schedule overruns. You can blame the NRC rules for adding complexity and cost but you can't blame the NRC for the nuclear industry's wildly over-optimistic estimates. According to that article, the airplane strike rule was added in 2009. The reactors began construction in 2013 with certain cost/schedule estimates. If the airplane strike rule significantly increased effort, that should have been accounted for before they actually started building. They had 4 years in advance to figure it out (or, if they couldn't figure it out in time, to postpone until they understood the consequences). After construction started the project kept slipping and costs kept going up for 10 years, despite the rules remaining the same since construction was actually under way.
- evilos 3y ago
  It was one of many factors of course. There's plenty of blame to go around. Votgle is still a net societal good and will provide clean energy for 60 to 80 years. They specifically asked the NRC if the new rule would apply to Votgle and were told it would not since the design was certified prior to the rule. Then the NRC changed their mind and incurred billions of dollars worth of delays and no one seems to blame the NRC for this unnecessary delay.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    If it was one of many factors, perhaps you could document a factor that could actually serve as an explanation? Because as he explained that one can't. Vogtle is a net negative compared to other approaches they could have, and should have, taken.
  - philipkglass 3y ago
    They specifically asked the NRC if the new rule would apply to Votgle and were told it would not since the design was certified prior to the rule. Where do you see that? According to the Rod Adams piece you linked above, the final design certification document for Vogtle included that new rule and it was completed in 2011: "As it turned out, meeting the new rule ended up requiring three more iterations on the design document and raised several issues of contention including concerns about the revised heat transfer capacity, concerns about the innovative shield building construction process devised, and concerns about the validity of the testing regime for the steel concrete composite modules that make up the shield building. Those and other related issues were not completely resolved until the issuance of the final design certification document in late 2011, more than 2.5 years after the PSC had approved the project using the previously approved design revision." In 2014 Westinghouse was still touting high confidence in affordable, predictable construction for the AP1000: https://web.archive.org/web/20141225195417/http://westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR/Economic-Benefits https://web.archive.org/web/20141225195417/http://westinghou... From the outset, the AP1000 PWR was designed to reduce capital costs and to be economically competitive with contemporary fossil-fueled plants. This requires lower overnight construction costs and higher confidence in the construction schedule. The AP1000 plant reduces the amount of safety-grade equipment required by using passive safety systems. Consequently, less Seismic Category I building volume is required to house the safety equipment (approximately 45 percent less than a typical reactor). The AP1000 plant’s modular construction design further reduces the construction schedule and the construction risks, with work shifted to factories with their better quality and cost control as well as labor costs that are less than those at the construction site. This also allows more work to be done in parallel. The use of heavy lift cranes enables an “open top” construction approach, which is effective in reducing construction time. With new computer-modeling capabilities, Westinghouse is able to optimize and choreograph the construction plan of an AP1000 unit in advance by simulation. The result is a very high confidence in the construction schedule. If the airplane strike rule had made that impossible, they shouldn't have been advertising the impossible. I'm not even confident that the airplane strike rule bears particular responsibility for the bad outcomes of this project, because large construction projects often run over schedule and budget even if the NRC never comes near them.

by evilos 3y ago

philipkglass 3y ago

This doesn't explain why the Vogtle AP1000s had cost/schedule overruns. You can blame the NRC rules for adding complexity and cost but you can't blame the NRC for the nuclear industry's wildly over-optimistic estimates. According to that article, the airplane strike rule was added in 2009. The reactors began construction in 2013 with certain cost/schedule estimates. If the airplane strike rule significantly increased effort, that should have been accounted for before they actually started building. They had 4 years in advance to figure it out (or, if they couldn't figure it out in time, to postpone until they understood the consequences). After construction started the project kept slipping and costs kept going up for 10 years, despite the rules remaining the same since construction was actually under way.

evilos 3y ago
It was one of many factors of course. There's plenty of blame to go around. Votgle is still a net societal good and will provide clean energy for 60 to 80 years. They specifically asked the NRC if the new rule would apply to Votgle and were told it would not since the design was certified prior to the rule. Then the NRC changed their mind and incurred billions of dollars worth of delays and no one seems to blame the NRC for this unnecessary delay.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  If it was one of many factors, perhaps you could document a factor that could actually serve as an explanation? Because as he explained that one can't. Vogtle is a net negative compared to other approaches they could have, and should have, taken.
- philipkglass 3y ago
  They specifically asked the NRC if the new rule would apply to Votgle and were told it would not since the design was certified prior to the rule. Where do you see that? According to the Rod Adams piece you linked above, the final design certification document for Vogtle included that new rule and it was completed in 2011: "As it turned out, meeting the new rule ended up requiring three more iterations on the design document and raised several issues of contention including concerns about the revised heat transfer capacity, concerns about the innovative shield building construction process devised, and concerns about the validity of the testing regime for the steel concrete composite modules that make up the shield building. Those and other related issues were not completely resolved until the issuance of the final design certification document in late 2011, more than 2.5 years after the PSC had approved the project using the previously approved design revision." In 2014 Westinghouse was still touting high confidence in affordable, predictable construction for the AP1000: https://web.archive.org/web/20141225195417/http://westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR/Economic-Benefits https://web.archive.org/web/20141225195417/http://westinghou... From the outset, the AP1000 PWR was designed to reduce capital costs and to be economically competitive with contemporary fossil-fueled plants. This requires lower overnight construction costs and higher confidence in the construction schedule. The AP1000 plant reduces the amount of safety-grade equipment required by using passive safety systems. Consequently, less Seismic Category I building volume is required to house the safety equipment (approximately 45 percent less than a typical reactor). The AP1000 plant’s modular construction design further reduces the construction schedule and the construction risks, with work shifted to factories with their better quality and cost control as well as labor costs that are less than those at the construction site. This also allows more work to be done in parallel. The use of heavy lift cranes enables an “open top” construction approach, which is effective in reducing construction time. With new computer-modeling capabilities, Westinghouse is able to optimize and choreograph the construction plan of an AP1000 unit in advance by simulation. The result is a very high confidence in the construction schedule. If the airplane strike rule had made that impossible, they shouldn't have been advertising the impossible. I'm not even confident that the airplane strike rule bears particular responsibility for the bad outcomes of this project, because large construction projects often run over schedule and budget even if the NRC never comes near them.